Macron is really miffed

[papasmurf]

Employees of all types (direct staff, contractors, temporary staff) have rights.

They do in France, a lot more rights than practically than any other country.

[GerryT]

Leaving aside the utter falsehood of your equating a contract for the manufacture and subsequent service of a military system to a contract of employment between master and servant, even the point you make fails at the first breath of wind.

I never said that, lets look at what I did say.

This will be a contractual matter then, if its spelt out where the 'resources' come from then the French are in trouble, if not it could be the AUS. A simplistic way of looking at it but there will be 2 sides to this. But employers have a very high burden of proof to sack an employee, which is what we are looking at.

AUS is an employer, A B2B employer and France is a B2B employee. There are many many forms of employee. Direct employee's are only one type.

We're I to be stupid enough to actually employ your mates mick paddy and shamus to work with me to get the radars sorted on Illustrious, the very first time they are found shirking off and not doing the job, their arses are being tied to the steam catapult and they're going for a power assisted swim with P45 to follow.

And you would be paying out big sums for such a dismissal. Employees of all types (direct staff, contractors, temporary staff) have rights. This would involve verbal and written warnings. There are very few instances that an employer can immediately terminate a contract, they do exist but not how you describe it.

[GerryT]

And when the UK government found their lovely clandestine agreement to supply the Jews with a couple of subs sunk by Saddam not paying his bills, which sank the prime contractor, the navy sure as hell didn't "employ" me to finish the autopilot helmsman interfaces, they needed PAYE records in the Admiralty the way Custer needed more Indians....... Nope, my deal to get my arse to Newport Pagnell and thence to Barrow in Furness was distinctly B2B !!!

And if you were injured on the job, your employer could be held responsible and would pay for that.

[GerryT]

Utter shash: an employment contract is a contract between an employer and an employee. The employer has to pay employers NIC's and handle the PAYE, getting a contractor to do work is not a contract of employment and if they hurt them selves it depends on whether the home owners 'Exercise Control Over the Project'. Most people let a contractor just get in with it so NO, they're not liable and the contractor will claim on his own insurance.

Is that right, what about sole traders, consultants offices were full of sole traders but in the end courts all over the country said they were employees, the law is not black and white on this. Fixed term contract employees. Permanent contract employees, part time employees. A contractor is an employee, not a direct employee, but an employee. As employer you have a duty of care and responsibilities. Even if that class of employee (contractor) is delinquent in a contract there is a burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate that all steps were taken to resolve the issue, any grey areas where the contractor can demonstrate the employer failed in his duty and a court will look very dimly on this. Employers can't just terminate a contract if a deadline is missed by a day. Constructive dismissal is a common action taken by contractors, this covers a multitude of ways an employer can be found at fault.

As for exercising control that's cack, what if the contractor you employ has no insurance, any injury to his employee will be paid out of your pocket. You have a responsibility to provide a safe working place, as the employer, even if the employee is a contractor or a direct employee.

Ina business to business contract of employment, if the contractor has an issue with his tax clearance then the employer will deduct tax and pay it direct to revenue. The contractor in this situation doesn't pay additional tax, he may be eligable for a tax rebate, but he has to go through the motions to get it back.

A task based contract is terminated once the task is complete and is conducted on a business to business relationship.

My son's in college now, he has a fixed term contract for 3 months, he has a task to complete, everything he does is a task, or maybe you could tell me what a direct employee does that isn't a task.

Try telling HMRC there is no difference between a business to business relationship and a contract of employment. It's called IR35 and they'll slap you with PAYE tax.

Try telling revenue that an employer in a business to business relationship never deducts taxes on behalf of the employed business, they'll say your wrong.
Try telling revenue that an employer has nothing to do, regarding employment rights, pension rights, redundancy rights with a full time contractor employed to do a task. After thats completed another task, and again. It doesn't matter how many contracts the contractor gets, he's seen by revenue as a full time member of staff.
Do you know the difference in employment law in France & the UK, do you know which courts the AUS/French contract was based on, do you know the contract agreed terms for resolving disputes or breach of contract. With a 60b contract these terms would be agreed.
Like I've been saying, we don't know enough and this will run a long time. But I can't help but feel there will be no winners, AUS now has a problem with France and the EU, the trade deal between AUS and EU was very important to AUS, that's now at risk.

The French did commit to the schedule and promised a letter outlining that by a certain date, they missed that date and lost the contract.

This statement alone shows your utter ignorance of the problem. you think a 60b contract can be cancelled when the employee commits to doing something but gets that commitment issued in writing late. How late was it, 1 week, 1 day, maybe 1hr. In your analysis, the committed dates for KPI's weren't broken. This isn't the reason the AUS broke that contract, I'd guess with the pending court cases both parties will be keeping their cards close to their chest.

KPI's and SG's are pretty much standard in a contract, you'd know if you'd ever had dealings with them. Contracts of employment don't have them so you'd have never seen them.

I know that, I said as much with different terminology, milestones/targets.
And again your spectacularly wrong, I worked 10yrs for a UK company while based in IRL. My employment contract had KPI's and my employment was subject to hitting those targets. If not people didn't last long, they were out, sacked, there's a process for doing this, It's very common.

[johnofgwent]

This will be a contractual matter then, if its spelt out where the 'resources' come from then the French are in trouble, if not it could be the AUS. A simplistic way of looking at it but there will be 2 sides to this. But employers have a very high burden of proof to sack an employee, which is what we are looking at.

Leaving aside the utter falsehood of your equating a contract for the manufacture and subsequent service of a military system to a contract of employment between master and servant, even the point you make fails at the first breath of wind.


We're I to be stupid enough to actually employ your mates mick paddy and shamus to work with me to get the radars sorted on Illustrious, the very first time they are found shirking off and not doing the job, their arses are being tied to the steam catapult and they're going for a power assisted swim with P45 to follow.

[Thomas]

Im on mobile so i'll shorten my reply.

its a shame time constraints and work stop me picking apart piece by piece this pile of verbal cac , but  i will rest assured.

[johnofgwent]

Utter shash: an employment contract is a contract between an employer and an employee. The employer has to pay employers NIC's and handle the PAYE, getting a contractor to do work is not a contract of employment and if they hurt them selves it depends on whether the home owners 'Exercise Control Over the Project'. Most people let a contractor just get in with it so NO, they're not liable and the contractor will claim on his own insurance.

A task based contract is terminated once the task is complete and is conducted on a business to business relationship.

Try telling HMRC there is no difference between a business to business relationship and a contract of employment. It's called IR35 and they'll slap you with PAYE tax.


The French did commit to the schedule and promised a letter outlining that by a certain date, they missed that date and lost the contract.

KPI's and SG's are pretty much standard in a contract, you'd know if you'd ever had dealings with them. Contracts of employment don't have them so you'd have never seen them.

And when the UK government found their lovely clandestine agreement to supply the Jews with a couple of subs sunk by Saddam not paying his bills, which sank the prime contractor, the navy sure as hell didn't "employ" me to finish the autopilot helmsman interfaces, they needed PAYE records in the Admiralty the way Custer needed more Indians....... Nope, my deal to get my arse to Newport Pagnell and thence to Barrow in Furness was distinctly B2B !!!

[Nick]

If you contract someone to manufacture anything, then it's an employment contract. Get someone into your house to do work and that's an employment contract, if they fall and hurt themselves your responsible. There are many types of employment contract.

Utter shash: an employment contract is a contract between an employer and an employee. The employer has to pay employers NIC's and handle the PAYE, getting a contractor to do work is not a contract of employment and if they hurt them selves it depends on whether the home owners 'Exercise Control Over the Project'. Most people let a contractor just get in with it so NO, they're not liable and the contractor will claim on his own insurance.

A task based contract is terminated once the task is complete and is conducted on a business to business relationship.

Try telling HMRC there is no difference between a business to business relationship and a contract of employment. It's called IR35 and they'll slap you with PAYE tax.


The French did commit to the schedule and promised a letter outlining that by a certain date, they missed that date and lost the contract.

KPI's and SG's are pretty much standard in a contract, you'd know if you'd ever had dealings with them. Contracts of employment don't have them so you'd have never seen them.

[GerryT]

What a ridiculous thing to say! A defence contract is akin to a contract of employment, you're mad... It's a task based contract with stage gates, KPI's and deadlines. When have you ever signed an employment contract that outlines tasks to be done by a certain date? Never is the answer.

If you contract someone to manufacture anything, then it's an employment contract. Get someone into your house to do work and that's an employment contract, if they fall and hurt themselves your responsible. There are many types of employment contract.
Task based, who carries out the tasks
How do you know there's KPI's and deadlines, have you read the contract
People sign contracts with tasks by a certain date all the time, which can lead to dismissal if not met. A sales man signs a contract that he will make 2m in sales within a year. Or that he will introduce two new customers a yr. Anything a person does is a task. These are measured goals for an employee and if missed, in the past you were sacked, now you're put on a PIP (performance improvement plan). Don't get out of that correctly and your gone.
This is all very very basic stuff.

At the G7 summit Macron outlined the French were going to send Australia a letter affirming their commitment to the timelines and delivery. An Australian government source said the letter arrived, but it was late. "If they can't deliver a letter in time, how the hell can they deliver 12 subs on time,"

So the French committed to the Schedule.
Have you any more info, or do we now jump straight to AUS cancelling the contract. On the assumption that France would most likely be late. I'd like to see that defence in a court case.

The French do like to piss people about.

Just look at how the UK Govt have been carrying on the past 5 yrs, longer than that in truth. Mac you give examples of how the French like to piss people about.

[Nick]

The French government does, but then they are not the only government that does.

No but they're the only government that has just lost a $90 billion contract to Oz.

[papasmurf]

The French do like to piss people about.

The French government does, but then they are not the only government that does.

[Nick]

But employers have a very high burden of proof to sack an employee, which is what we are looking at.

What a ridiculous thing to say! A defence contract is akin to a contract of employment, you're mad... It's a task based contract with stage gates, KPI's and deadlines. When have you ever signed an employment contract that outlines tasks to be done by a certain date? Never is the answer.

At the G7 summit Macron outlined the French were going to send Australia a letter affirming their commitment to the timelines and delivery. An Australian government source said the letter arrived, but it was late. "If they can't deliver a letter in time, how the hell can they deliver 12 subs on time,"

The French do like to piss people about.

[Sheepy]

Afghanistan will go down as a massive failure for the USA and UK, no other way of looking at it.

I will take it then, that Smurphy and Murphy are great judges of these things.

[GerryT]

That answers Thomas's question. We know why you are here.

I don't have an agenda, your Govt is a disaster, best to change. Go for another "brexit" driven govt,  I don't care, but just put people in that will do the best for the UK.

[GerryT]

I did, we will just turn up and take a pragmatic approach without panic and drama just like on the tarmac in Afghanistan. Which I am sure will go down as a great achievement at some point. Our reporter Barry on the spot will report on progress as usual.

Afghanistan will go down as a massive failure for the USA and UK, no other way of looking at it.